I'd say (note that I've been proven wrong - several times
) that yes and yes.
First off, the spell is from school conjuration subschool
|a creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence |
that has a duration other than instantaneous, so the 'dust' last as long as the spell.
Second the area of effect is
|Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can't see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect. |
. The spell description says that all within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades
, so since the 'cloud' is still there if a new creature enters the area of effect I'd say it should
be susceptible to the effects.
I wouldn't think of it much different from say stinking cloud.
Edit: then again, stinking could specifically
states that it creates a cloud whereas glitterdust doesn't. I then change my stance. I now picture it as a cloud of golden particles that quickly settle over whatever was in the area of effect at the time of casting, so new creatures entering the area of effect don't get affected as the 'glitterdust' has settled on whatever was there, be it creatures or the floor.